2 report on the progress made regarding compliance with the Judgments delivered in the instant case, according to the Order of the Court of September 22, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause 6). 8. The brief of March 9, 2007, whereby the State submitted the report requested in the Order of the Court of September 22, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause 6). 9. The briefs of January 30 and April 10, 2007, whereby the representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) furnished information on the progress made regarding compliance with the Judgments delivered in the instant case and submitted comments to their State’s report (supra Having Seen clause 8). 10. The communication of April 27, 2007, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted comments to the State’s report (supra Having Seen clause 8). 11. The notes of April 30, June 26 and December 6, 2007, whereby the Secretariat requested and reiterated that the State should submit a new detailed report on the measures adopted in furtherance of the full compliance with the Judgments delivered in the instant case (supra Having Seen clauses 1 and 2). The State failed to furnish the requested report. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as already stated by this Court and as prescribed in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, domestic law may not be invoked to justify non-fulfillment of previously undertaken international obligations. Treaty obligations of the States parties are binding on all State powers and organs.1 4. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic level. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. 1 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention of Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 9, 2008, Considering clause 4; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of June 10, 2008, Considering clause 5.